I’m 42 and have been prone to running injuries the last five years–tibial stress fracture, knee bursitis, hallux limitus, plantar fasciitis, rolled ankles, you name it. This was after running healthy for a decade.
I’m doing my first IM in five years this summer, at a little race in Norway. I’ve been running about 15-20 miles a week since November, and so far have been relatively healthy and pain free. Before November, I’d been running 3-5 miles once or twice per week, mostly to keep my dogs exercised. Most of my runs are on soft trails, and almost all are at a relatively easy pace (9 min/mile when running on the road, and slower on the hilly offroad trails).
I just ran a 10 mile road race and was surprised at how well I did considering the low volume and easy pace of my recent training. My 10 mile PR is 1:08:32 six years ago when I was doing a lot of speedwork and 40 MPW. I ran 1:13 on Sunday, but it probably was more like the equivalent of 1:11 given the 25 mph winds. And I don’t think I quite gave it 100% like I did when I PR’ed.
So for me, the difference over 10 miles between really training and light easy training is about 15 seconds per mile, or 6.5 minutes over a marathon. I’m currently in the best cycling shape I’ve ever been in–FTP about 240.
I’m torn between trying to get faster with intervals and tempo runs, and just realizing that upping the volume to 30 MPW all at an easy pace is probably the smarter move. And the run for my August race is a little odd–16 miles of flats followed by 10 miles of uphill hiking with 5000’ of vertical. (I have no plans to run the four miles from mile 16 to 20 at 9.3% grade, and nobody runs the last three on the rocks.) I just want to arrive safely and healthy at the top of Zombie Hill at mile 20, snag a black t-shirt, then survive the final climb.
It seems like I’m better served by making my “hard” running efforts be long, slow hill intervals (even power hiking) rather than anything at a quicker pace. Thoughts?
Was really impressed years ago with some distance runners who became competitive cyclists. They just killed it right off the bat without a cycling background. They were from the LSD camp that said that they got enough opportunities for speed while doing uphills, sprints to the city limit sign, races, etc. They just wanted to learn the new time demands - four hour efforts with cycling vs two hour efforts with running - in order to achieve their goals.
Working in speed at your age brought more injury than results for me. Wouldn’t do any more speed than races, hills and what comes your way while putting in the time and distance.
Some running is better than no running. I would be very careful if speed work is the cause of your injuries. Just run easy and throw some strides in a few runs. Can you increase your volume w/o injury? If so, go this route.
No speed work needed. Some uphill sprints on fresh legs maybe. Some strides. maybe some tempo intervals, but short intervals. Not intended to push your limits, intended to remind yourself how to run faster.
I’d take it one step further and say no very long runs either. Maximize volume
No speed work needed. Some uphill sprints on fresh legs maybe. Some strides. maybe some tempo intervals, but short intervals. Not intended to push your limits, intended to remind yourself how to run faster.
I’d take it one step further and say no very long runs either. Maximize volume
I agree. It’s the second half of the long run that does most of the damage to your body. If you are particularly injury susceptible, that’s the first thing to worry about (or maybe the second, after speed). In that case, better to do two, 8-mile runs in a day than one 16-miler
If the difference between “light easy training” and “really training” for you is only 15 seconds a mile, you’re probably doing your easy runs way too fast.
I think a tempo run could be good, intervals less good. I might keep my hill intervals but not long slow hill intervals. There are better ways to structure them.
I would guess that there are 4 things that play a roll in IM marathon performance:
Run speed (how fast you can run 1-13 miles)
Run volume- how many weekly miles you run- will affect how difficult the IM marathon is.
Bike training- volume and intensity
Pacing and nutrition
It is probably possible to do well if you have 3 out of 4 of these things.
But it sounds like you are talking about no speed training AND low run volume.
I might try to fake speed training and/or run volume.
Fake speed: up hill running on treadmill with intensity. Or real uphill running with intendity.
Fake run volume:
2 hr bike (with some intensity) + 13 mile run = long run
3 hr easy bike + 10 mile run = long run
Completely agree here. I’m in a similar boat, lower bone density so I’m very prone to stress fractures. As soon as I do any speed work on the run, an injury pops up.
What has worked for me is really working on my bike fitness, trying to get a lot of quality and volume there. On my run I keep up a decent volume (45-55mpw) and the most “speed” I do is a little pick up the last mile or two of some runs. It has gotten me down to an IM marathon in the 3:20s. I think for many people the IM marathon is more about pacing and durability than speed.
It certainly has been my experience that I run better with the long slow distance stuff. There are some seasons I have done speedwork for my run, and other seasons that I haven’t. The best seasons have correlated 100% with “no speedwork.” They’re also the seasons with the fewest illnesses. I’m not a fragile runner in the sense of injuries, but I seem prone to every flu and cold and bug out there.
Like you, I’ve found adding long hills rather than actually running faster has made me into a more powerful runner. I can’t explain why it works instead of speedwork, and why intense speed sessions seem to be followed by me getting a cold, but I go with what works. I think there’s a huge variation across individuals, so my experience won’t apply to others for whatever reason - different gender, different muscle types, different anything. But because it doesn’t work for someone else doesn’t mean the theory is wrong; it just means there are nuances and differences we haven’t become aware of.
I also think a lot of the reason why it works for me isn’t so much physical as mental: I start the run in a half-Ironman and think “Bah, there’s nothing to this! I run this distance all the time.” But the years that I’ve done speedwork I don’t have the same confidence in being able to last the distance or running right at threshold for a longer time. Intuitively I measure the run by the time it will take, not by the intensity it will consume.